Because of the issues in Jeep v. United States of America I was forced to take three poison pills, I was without warning deprived custody of my son, evicted from my house and my driver’s license was suspended. All without credible probable cause or WARNING!!! All are the DIRECT result of Judicial, Prosecutorial, Police and Spouse negligence, malice and corruption. I quote from the common law, the basis for Judicial Immunity, Floyd and Barker (1607):

“Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia[3], is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy.”

That the two issues, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614 & 08-1823, are even linked, one (08-1823) is used without merit as probable cause for the other (07-2614), is in itself an “extrajudicial” conspiracy “before out of Court” and creates "the clear absence of all jurisdiction[4]." The secondary jurisdictional issue of no probable cause for the order (07-2614) from the listed “acts” in the petition is also binding; if there is NO probable cause, there is NO JURISDICTION. That is before we even get to the Judicial, Prosecutorial and Police negligence, malice and corruption, the lack of credible probable cause with the arrest and conviction in (08-1823) a DWI conviction in Camden County.

I am asking for a judicial inquiry. There was and is an ongoing “unlawful Conspiracy”. The preponderance of evidence demands, “due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia[5]… for this he ought to do.[6]” The evidence of “an unlawful Conspiracy” as I have included here is overwhelming, uncontested and irrefutable.

The courts should have never held for Judicial Immunity in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). The unsustainable precedent for Judicial Immunity from “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[7]” in practice and effect negates the 1st Amendment’s “right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” to the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land”[8] and gave added and unwarranted credibility to the “Jim Crow” laws in the South. That addition has now spawned the “Jane Crow”[9] era.

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

As I referenced previously with my appeals, my petition for a writ of certiorari and in my prior correspondents with the FBI, The Attorney General, United States of America and the President of the United States of America and because I know NO ONE ever took the time to look at them, I NOW include for the record:

1.A copy of the trial transcript (SD26269.doc), where Officer Little gave false testimony

2.A copy of the “U.S. Department of Transportation DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Participant Manual” 2002 Edition (NHSTA) Page VIII-11, Section 4. Test Conditions, Second Paragraph, last sentence that proves his testimony to be false. Note I asked specifically for this information in pretrial motions[12]. The Prosecutor[13] and the Police[14] clearly presented false EVIENCE to convict me!!!!!!

3.A copy of the trial transcript (SD26269.doc) where Officer Taylor contradicts his prior sworn police report. He testified I did not blow for a continuous 15 seconds.

4.A copy of Officer Taylor’s sworn police report[15] dated 05-18-03. Taylor confirmed on page two of his sworn report, I blew for 15 seconds without stopping, “Jeep started again watching his watch and stopped after blowing approximately 15 seconds.” No one can blow for 20 seconds without stopping. If it is attempted on the DATAMASTER as programmed for the State of Missouri (5/17/03) it will ALWAYS return an “Invalid result” every-time. There is NO way, given the instructions in Taylor’s sworn police report, anyone could pass the test. Anyone following those instructions will fail with an “Invalid result” every-time. The police report is consistent with verifiable facts, i.e., the “invalid result”. Taylor’s sworn trial testimony is not is consistent with verifiable facts; it will not produce an “invalid result”. He thus gave false testimony. The Prosecutor[16] and the Police[17] clearly presented false EVIENCE to convict me!!!!!!

5.It should be noted that these issues were brought up in post trial motion for a miss trial and in the federal civil rights case.

6.A copy of the petition for an order of protection[18] filed 11/03/03. It does not list any “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[19]” i.e., “first hand abuse”. What it lists is an inadmissible hear-say allegation of an infamous bad-act regarding a court appearance from a month prior and 150 miles away IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION, where the alleged victim, by her own admission, was NOT EVEN PRESENT and where the judge eventually, all though unknown at the time of the hearing (11/19/03), would recuse himself[20] for his thus admitted bad act. The Judges Goeke and Jones clearly issued a Warrant without probable cause to take away my son, my home, everything I cared for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7.It should be noted that the issue, a hear-say account of an alleged infamous bad-act regarding a court appearance from a month prior and 150 miles away IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION (traffic court in Camden County), where the alleged victim, by her own admission, was NOT EVEN PRESENT and where the judge eventually, all though unknown at the time of the hearing (11/19/03), would recuse himself for his thus admitted bad act filled in the blank on the petition for the NON-existent probable cause in the resultant order thus created "the clear absence of all jurisdiction[21]" (family Court in St. Louis County) for Judge Goeke and Commissioner Jones. “Probable cause” as required by the VI Amendment has no credible enforceable meaning if this not be the case[22]. There was no probable cause thus there was no jurisdiction. This was brought up during the hearing, in post trial motions, a state appeal, and a federal Civil Rights Case presented to the Supreme Court as a Writ of Certiorari 07-11115.

The courts should have never unconstitutionally held for Judicial Immunity in regard to “Jim Crow” laws, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). The unsustainable precedent for Judicial Immunity from “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[23]” in practice and effect negates the Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land”[24]. This is old news, it establishes a frame of reference, the “Jane Crow”[25] era, for the record I quote “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry”:

“It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an Order of Protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house…

Long-term emotional damage to children's fathers -- surely not good for children -- often begins with a restraining order…

"A man against whom a frivolous Order of Protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating[26], and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect... It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."”[27]

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

“Time is of the essence”

Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Respondent, )

v. ) S. D. No. 26269

DAVID G. JEEP, )

Appellant. )

IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION

The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Cause No. CR203-1336M

DAVID G. JEEP, )

Defendant. )

TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL

ALEX LITTLE, called as a witness in behalf of the STATE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JEEP: Excerpt starting page 84

Q. The walk-and-turn and the balance test, the standards for applying that test, do they reference anything about footwear?

A. Yes. They say that if a person has on footwear that has like greater than four-inch heels, then you can allow them to take their footwear off, if they want to, to perform the test.

Q. Is it a four-inch heel?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or a two-inch heel?

A. It's a--If I'm not mistaken, it's a four-inch heel.

Q. Do you have that in writing anywhere?

A. Not on me now, no.

MR. JEEP: Do you have that? I asked for this earlier, Judge. No one was able to present me with it or they told me to look for it, and I looked under the NHTSA, I called NHTSA, they wanted me to buy it from them--

THE COURT: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. No.

MR. JEEP: Excuse me. They--The--

THE COURT: You asked the question, he's answered it.

MR. JEEP: Okay.

BY MR. JEEP:

Q. There's no place where this is standardized? Do you have in your--in writing anyplace?

A. I would assume I had it with the information that they gave me in the academy.

Q. Okay. And you think it's four-inch?

A. Yes, sir.

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Respondent, )

v. ) S. D. No. 26269

DAVID G. JEEP, )

Appellant. )

IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION

The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Cause No. CR203-1336M

DAVID G. JEEP, )

Defendant. )

TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL

TIM TAYLOR, called as a witness in behalf of the STATE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JEEP: Excerpt starting page 118

Q. I mean that's what you said. I blew for 15 seconds. How did you know I was blowing 15 seconds?

A. Approximately 15 seconds.

Q. Approximately 15 seconds. Okay.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. So I did have a solid tone for approximately 15 seconds?

A. No. Actually your take (phonetic spelling) cut out during the 15 seconds.

Q. The tape (phonetic spelling) cut out?

A. Your breath sample.

Q. So it wasn't 15 seconds; how long was it approximately?

A. You blew approximately for 15 seconds.

Q. Okay. So I blew for approximately 15 seconds at a solid tone?

A. No. There was--There was a break in--

Q. How long of a solid tone did I blow for approximately?

A. I really don't recall.

Q. Was there a break in the 15 seconds? Did I stop and start in the 15 seconds?

A. Yes.

Q. That's not what your--I mean you stated here in your supplement report here--have you read it right here, this last sentence, "Jeep started the test, watching his watch. After blowing for approximately 15 seconds"--

A. Uh-huh.

Q. So I blew 15 seconds, but it wasn't a blow; it was a--

A. I don't think I stated that it was a continuous blow for 15 seconds, no.

Q. Okay. So it was just a blow, I guess. I don't know--We don't know what it was. Start and stopped. Okay.

And you also said that I blew earlier on in his--in one of these instances, huffing and puffing for five seconds approximately each time?

A. I don't know--

Q. Earlier testimony.

A. --know what you mean by huffing and puffing.

Q. Well, I mean you said I blew, starting and stopping approximately five--five seconds each time.

A. Approximately five seconds. About the longest

that you would blow was approximately five seconds, yes.

Click on image to enlarge

[1] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.

[2] A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).

[9] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.

[10] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.

[11] A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).

[12] “Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Pp.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)

[13]Due Process of Law as defined by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), says: “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87

[15] The State of Missouri Department of Revenue, that has the authority and responsibility to reviews these suspensions, neither of them know what a refusal is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I told them that during the appeal in a letter to Missouri’s Attorney General. If the State of Missouri was competent to enforce the law or had even a clue as to what constituted a refusal this should be another Brady Violation, BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)

[16]Due Process of Law as defined by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), says: “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87

[19]. Amendment IV – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”, ratified 12/15/1791.

[20] Judge Bennett recused himself; I had filed a grievance with the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges. Not that it did any good; the Commission has no authority to do anything to a sitting Judge. They are window dressing, used to wear a person down into submission.

[22]There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power (a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse, a federal officer, or a federal judge) has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise.” (emphasis and non-italic parenthetical text added) Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932)Page 287 U. S. 397-398.

[27]Sheara F. Friend, as quoted in “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire. That describes my first year under an order of protection perfectly! This quote originally listed (209A) of 1978 Abuse Prevention Act in Massachusetts I changed it to Order of Protection. For clarity

I am motivated to ask for HELP!!!!!!!! I am destitute. I live on the street and in homeless shelters. I am literally and figuratively on my last leg. I have endured 7 years of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[2], two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America[3].

I quote from an article “Why We Must Fix Our Prisons”, By Senator Jim Webb, Parade Magazine published: 03/29/2009: “With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported prisoners.[4]” This is not about Drug Laws or Prison reform. Are we 5 times as bad? Are our streets 5 times as safe? No.

The problem is we no longer have the protection of the Bill of Rights or the laws we have created to protect ourselves, there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY, everyone has ABSOLUTE IMPUNNITY. Now you might want to believe this is all about felony crimes, but in the “Jane Crow[5]” era you are AGAIN wrong. This corruption has permeated all aspects of Due Process of Law, family law, criminal law, civil law, traffic law and etc. A judge, a prosecutor or a police officer can do whatever they want; to “We the People”, “We the People” have no recourse.

I assert and agree with Lord Acton (1887): "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge (our Government) Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.[6]" (emphasis added)

Immunity, be it judicial, prosecutorial or witness (police), by definition is diametrically opposed to the Rule of Law.[7]

“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.”

They are unfortunately woefully mistaken. We do not live under the Rule of Law as written in our constitution and laws as assumed by 99.999999% of the people in the United States of America. Judges have awarded themselves, absolute immunity, from the constitution and laws via their Judge Made Law first in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871)and then subsequently and specifically as regards the equal protection of the laws, equal rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws under Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). This is corruption on a massive scale. We live under tyranny as defined by Alexander Hamilton:

“The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”[8]

You as others are being led down the garden path to believe we are safer because of this judicial freedom, when in fact we are not. I quote:

A malicious and corrupt (as noted above) “judge of a criminal court, invested with general criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed within a certain district, should hold a particular act to be a public offense, which is not by the law made an offense[9], and proceed to the arrest and trial of a party charged with such act, or should sentence a party convicted to a greater punishment than that authorized by the law[10] upon its proper construction, no personal liability[11] to civil action for such acts would attach to the judge”Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871)Page 80 U. S. 352

With negligent, malicious and corrupt judges loosed, NONE OF US ARE SAFE!!!! Judges are not bound by our rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the Constitution and laws, i.e., they do not need probable cause[12]; “We the People” have no recourse. Prosecutors[13] are no longer held to any standard of integrity or veracity in their openly negligent, malicious and corrupt persecution[14]; “We the People” have no recourse. The police[15] can with their negligence, malice and corruption unrestrained, without fear of consequences, perjure[16]&[17] themselves on the stand and “We the People” have no recourse.

This is corruption on a massive scale.

The issue in Connick v. Thompson (09-571), a current Supreme Court case, is a simple one. Given that no one on this planet is divine or omniscient, the assumption of innocence is not a right it is an invincible maxim: "Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. - The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof." The universal Ends of Justice thus REQUIRE the accused be informed thoroughly of the charges against him. Any surprise or denial in the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence attempts to defeat an invincible maxim. Surprise, how can someone prove the negative when they are not sure of what the negative is?

The universal Ends of Justice via logical consideration requires affording the accused a fair chance to defend themselves. Denial of exculpable evidence defeats the ends of Justice. And if there is exculpable evidence, why is the prosecution persecuting the accused anyway?

That brings us to the REAL issue, Immunity and the Right of Redress as guaranteed by the1st Amendment. The right of redress has for TOO long been denied Citizens of the United States of America.

We can bail out the automaker’s to the tune of $75-$120+ billion[18]. We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion[19]. We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion[20]. But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of “our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants”[21] and compensate the victims?

That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress:

“If we, our chief justice(judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”

It was assumed by the Barons, that the King, his chief justice (judges), his officials, or any of his servants might offend and there would need to be a right of redress.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land[22]” requires that the Courts afford “We the People” consideration and thus Due Process of Law as regard

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It was assumed by the Founding Fathers, the newly formed Government would from time to time screw up and be liable to the Citizen for a redress of grievances. The founding Fathers had learned from the experience of history from the time of Lord CokeFloyd and Barker (1607)[23] to the writing of the constitution (1787). “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.[24]” The “auxiliary precautions”[25] precluded the grant of ABSOLUTE immunity to anyone.

Judicial Power, the administration of Justice, per Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America is defined as: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties….” Justice was important to the founding fathers. The Declaration of Independence was based on the pursuit of Justice to over come “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism[26]”. James Madison just prior to the ratification of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers, No. 51 wrote:

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.[27]”

The grant of absolute immunity is incompatible with the ends of Justice because it arbitrarily asserts a known fallacy i.e., divinity or omniscience. No one on this planet is divine or omniscient.

The Supreme Court obviously knew better in 1882. The Supreme Court confirmed the protection of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws in 1882:

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.”United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) @ Page 220.

Again the Supreme Court obviously knew better in 1932:

“If this extreme position could be deemed to be well taken, it is manifest that the fiat of a state governor (a federal officer, a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse) and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases, the futility of which the state may at any time disclose…

There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power (by a federal judge, a federal officer, a state judge, a state prosecutor, a police officer, a spouse) has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise.” (emphasis and non-italic parenthetical text added) Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932)Page 287 U. S. 397-398.

In 1935 the Supreme Court accurately described the issue, but failed to provide a remedy:

“The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.

It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused, when they should properly carry none.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)

But the Supreme Court denied “We the People” a redress of grievances for the denial.

Justice, per the Constitution requires the State to provide the accused with “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[28]” via a warrant and ultimately the evidence with the “presentment[29]” of the charges with “Due Process of Law”.

“We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87

clearly requires the state to present it’s evidence to the accused prior to the trial. But the Supreme Court denied “We the People” a redress of grievances for the denial.

Now granted this all makes things difficult for the Judges, Prosecution and Police. But, that is why they get paid. Why we call it work instead of vacation. To date “We the People” have determined our “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” as the best way to avoid “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism[30]”

Probable cause is not just a fill in the blank. Due Process is not an ambush. Surprise evidence has no place in the prosecution of the law. All witness have to be held accountable for the veracity of their testimony under a democratically limited government. Due Process is a search for the TRUTH. In that search, during that search the accused is to be granted access to all the evidence, incriminating and exculpatory, so that they can make their defense of the “negative.”

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) gave the Judges immunity from any liability for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. In 1967 that was the remnants of the Jim Crow laws. They have been utilizing that lack of restraint with the “Jane Crow[31]” discrimination in Family Law and in their establishment of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983). Their JOB is to administer Justice per our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. They should NEVER have been allowed to grant themselves absolute IMMUNITY from the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. This by definition goes against “auxiliary precautions”[32] we have instituted, our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.

We can bail everybody out. But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of “our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants”[35] and compensate the victims?

That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeep v. United States of America is a flagrant case of Judicial, Prosecutorial and Police negligence, malice and corruption. It is time to over rule Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) and re-establish the First Amendment Right to Redress Grievances. Judges, Prosecutors and Police work for “We the People.” It is time “We the People” had our rights per 1st Amendment to the Constitution “Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Justice REQUIRES it and “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”[36]

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

“Time is of the essence”

Thank you in advance.

David G. Jeep

cc: file

[1] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.

[3]Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).

[8]The Federalist No. 84, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered, Independent Journal, Wednesday, July 16, Saturday, July 26, Saturday, August 9, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton

[9] “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, US Constitution Section 9 - No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[10] “the practice of arbitrary imprisonments” A Judge made law the repeal of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, US Constitution Section 9 - The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

[11] “no personal liability” A Judge made law the repeal of the Constitutional prohibition for a Title of Nobility. A Title of Nobility as prohibited by the Constitution of the United States of America Article I§ 9 (Federal) & § 10 (States)

[12] Jeep v Jones, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/) see also Jeep v. United States of America.

[33]TITLE 42 , U.S.C., SECTION 1985 “If two or more persons… conspire… for the purpose of depriving… the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws;… , the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages”

[34]TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

GoFundMe

Contact Form

About Me

“Where
an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is
safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where
there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite
cause.

Government
is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the
various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses.
This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which
impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” James
Madison “Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792”

The
strength of human civilization is its ability to OVERCOME our purely animal
instincts… CO-OPERATE for the GREATER GOOD!!Human civilization is the only species on this planet capable of
overcoming the animal instinct of Herbert Spencer’s discredited “survival of
the fittest.”This ability is what makes
us human, what makes us dominant and what separates us from the animals.

The
United States of America was FOUNDED on the "Love of Virtue."The Founding Fathers based their
constitutional assertions on the love of virtue as defined by Montesquieu’s
republican government’s essential ingredient, the willingness to put the
interests of the community ahead of private interests.We need to remember the, at the time,
“REVOLUTIONARY” “Love of Virtue” that this country was founded upon….